The rules in this section are overly complex. The heart of the rule at 9.2.6.5, with the preceding rules as exceptions to it. To program a computer to apply these rules, requires this reverse treatment to winnow out the exceptions, but a human-read rule structure can be read straight forward. Why not something like this:

+

+

9.2.6.2. General rule

+

+

9.2.6.2.1 Other than the exceptions noted in 9.2.6.3-9.2.6.6, record the first part of a compound name as the first element. (BTW, we are inconsistently using element here, where it otherwise refers to a distinct attribute).

+

+

9.2.6.2.2 Subject to the exceptions noted in 9.2.6.3-9.2.6.6, if the parts of a compound surname are regularly or occasionally hyphenated, including place names connected to the surname by a hyphen, record the first part as the first element and retain the hyphen between the parts.

+

+

9.2.6.3 Established usage/Known preference

+

+

9.2.6.3.1 If the person bearing a compound surname has a known preference to be listed under a part other than the first then use that preferred part as the first element.

+

+

9.2.6.4 Married women ...

+

+

9.2.6.4.1 In cases other than where either the person’s language is Czech, French, Hungarian, Italian, or Spanish or the name is hyphenated, record the husband’s surname as the first element.

+

+

9.2.6.5 Portuguese compound surnames

+

+

9.2.6.5.1 If the person’s language is Portuguese, record the last part as the first element.

+

+

9.2.6.5.2 If the name of a person whose language is Portuguese includes a word indicating relationship, follow the instructions given under 9.2.5.6.

+

+

9.2.6.6 Nature of surname uncertain in English, Danish ...

+

+

9.2.6.6.1 If the person’s language is English, Danish, Faroese, Norwegian, or Swedish, record the last part of the name as the first element.

+

--MYERS, 1/17/2008

+

===9.2.6.1 General Guidelines===

===9.2.6.1 General Guidelines===

Line 217:

Line 244:

====9.2.6.6.1====

====9.2.6.6.1====

+

9.2.6.6 (p. 9-27) The main exceptions are the same and 9.2.6.6a.2 is covered by 9.2.6.2 (as written, or 9.2.6.3 in my rewrite) and the references to 9.3.7 are redundant. Collapse the rules. -- MYERS, 1/17/2008

'''9.2.6.6a Names of persons whose language is English'''

'''9.2.6.6a Names of persons whose language is English'''

Revision as of 17:05, 17 January 2008

To enter your comments, click on the link where you want to comment.
Always log in before editing a section.

9.2.0 Basic instructions on preferred names for persons

9.2.0.1 Scope

9.2.0.1.1

9.2.0.1.2

9.2.0.2 Sources of information

9.0.2.2.1

EDITORIAL: this is misnumbered; it should be 9.2.0.2.1. folkner 12/20/2007

9.2.0.2.2

9.2.0.3 Choosing the preferred name

9.2.0.3.1

9.2.0.4 Recording the preferred name

9.2.0.4.1

9.2.0.4.2

9.2.0.4.3

9.2.1 Different forms of the same name

9.2.1.1 Fullness

9.2.1.1.1

9.2.1.1.2

9.2.1.1.3

9.2.1.2 Language

According to the objectives and principles document, p. 5, "language preference", the preferred form of name "should be the name ... found on manifestations or in reference sources in the language and script best suited to the users of the catalogue." This principle is not evident in 9.2.1.2. The only nod toward the principle is if the name chosen is in a *script* (not language) other than that used by the agency. Are we going to follow the basic principle or not? Bob Maxwell, Jan. 1, 2008.

9.2.1.2.1

Is there a difference between "the language of most of the resources" and "the form most commonly found", the language most commonly used elsewhere? Bob Maxwell, Jan. 1, 2008.

9.2.1.2.2

9.2.1.2.3

9.2.1.2a Greek or Latin versus other forms

9.2.1.2a.1

9.2.1.2a.2

9.2.1.2b Established form in the language preferred by the agency creating the data

9.2.1.2b.1

9.2.1.2b.2

9.2.1.2.4

9.2.1.3 Names written in a non-preferred script

9.2.1.3.1

9.2.1.3a Given name, etc. recordes as the first element

9.2.1.3a.1

9.2.1.3a.2

This rule is about script, not language, and so should read "If no form in the script preferred ... or if no one form in that script predominates ..." Also the explanatory text to the example should read "No predominant roman script form ..." for the same reason. The example exemplifies the script problem, not the language problem. Or should, anyway. Bob Maxwell, Jan. 1, 2008.

9.2.1.3a.3

9.2.1.3b Surname recorded as the first element

9.2.1.3b.1
CLARITY/CONSISTENCY: The extensive footnote to this rule really needs to be renumbered as an alternate rule, as with other alternative instructions in RDA. In its current context, it is difficult to identify exactly when the alternative instruction ends (although it's presumably at the top of the next page).
- Glennan 1/8/08

9.2.1.3b.2

9.2.1.3b.3

9.2.1.3b.4

9.2.1.3b.5

9.2.1.4 Spelling

9.2.1.4.1

9.2.1.4.2

9.2.1.4.3

9.2.2 Different names for the same person

9.2.2.1

9.2.2.2

9.2.2.3

9.2.3 Change of name

9.2.3.1

9.2.3.2

9.2.4 Individuals with more than one identity

9.2.4.1

9.2.4.2

9.2.4.2 is not an exception. 9.2.4.1 deals with the case where a person has more than one identity. 9.2.4.2 deals with the case where the person has only one (bibliographic) identity, the pseudonym, so it isn't an exception to the rule about more than one identity. It shouldn't be so labelled. Bob Maxwell, Jan. 1, 2008.

9.2.4.3

9.2.4.4

9.2.5 General guidelines on recording names containing a surname

9.2.5.1 General guidelines

9.2.5.1.1

9.2.5.1.2

9.2.5.1.3

9.2.5.1.4

9.2.5.2 Surname represented by an initial

9.2.5.2.1

It might be useful to have a reference to 9.2.17 here, since the reader of the rule is bound to wonder what to do if the surname is represented by an initial and no other part of the name is given in full. Bob Maxwell, Jan. 1, 2008.

9.2.5.3 Part of the name treated as a surname

9.2.5.3.1

9.2.5.3.2

9.2.5.4 Persons known by a surname only

9.2.5.4.1

9.2.5.4.2

9.2.5.5 Married woman identified only by her husband's name

9.2.5.5.1

9.2.5.5.2

9.2.5.6 Words indicating relationship following surname

9.2.5.6.1

9.2.5.6.2

9.2.5.7 Saints

9.2.5.7.1

9.2.6 Compound surnames

The rules in this section are overly complex. The heart of the rule at 9.2.6.5, with the preceding rules as exceptions to it. To program a computer to apply these rules, requires this reverse treatment to winnow out the exceptions, but a human-read rule structure can be read straight forward. Why not something like this:

9.2.6.2. General rule

9.2.6.2.1 Other than the exceptions noted in 9.2.6.3-9.2.6.6, record the first part of a compound name as the first element. (BTW, we are inconsistently using element here, where it otherwise refers to a distinct attribute).

9.2.6.2.2 Subject to the exceptions noted in 9.2.6.3-9.2.6.6, if the parts of a compound surname are regularly or occasionally hyphenated, including place names connected to the surname by a hyphen, record the first part as the first element and retain the hyphen between the parts.

9.2.6.3 Established usage/Known preference

9.2.6.3.1 If the person bearing a compound surname has a known preference to be listed under a part other than the first then use that preferred part as the first element.

9.2.6.4 Married women ...

9.2.6.4.1 In cases other than where either the person’s language is Czech, French, Hungarian, Italian, or Spanish or the name is hyphenated, record the husband’s surname as the first element.

9.2.6.5 Portuguese compound surnames

9.2.6.5.1 If the person’s language is Portuguese, record the last part as the first element.

9.2.6.5.2 If the name of a person whose language is Portuguese includes a word indicating relationship, follow the instructions given under 9.2.5.6.

9.2.6.6 Nature of surname uncertain in English, Danish ...

9.2.6.6.1 If the person’s language is English, Danish, Faroese, Norwegian, or Swedish, record the last part of the name as the first element.
--MYERS, 1/17/2008

9.2.6.1 General Guidelines

9.2.6.1.1

9.2.6.1.2

Editorial: There is an artifactual AACR2 reference that is not suppressed at the end of the rule. -- MYERS 1/17/2008

9.2.6.1.3

9.2.6.2 Established usage

9.2.6.2.1

9.2.6.3 Hyphenated surnames

9.2.6.3.1

9.2.6.4 Married women whose surname consists of surname before marriage and husband’s surname

9.2.6.4.1

9.2.6.5 Other compound surnames

9.2.6.5.1

9.2.6.5.2

9.2.6.5.3

9.2.6.6 Nature of surname uncertain

9.2.6.6.1

9.2.6.6 (p. 9-27) The main exceptions are the same and 9.2.6.6a.2 is covered by 9.2.6.2 (as written, or 9.2.6.3 in my rewrite) and the references to 9.3.7 are redundant. Collapse the rules. -- MYERS, 1/17/2008

9.2.6.7 Place names added to surnames

9.2.6.7.1

9.2.7 Surnames with separately written prefixes

9.2.7.1 General guidelines

9.2.7.1.1

9.2.7.1.2

9.2.7.1.3

9.2.7.2 Articles and prepositions

9.2.7.2.1

9.2.7.2.2

9.2.7.2.3

9.2.7.2.4

9.2.7.3 Other prefixes

9.2.7.3.1

9.2.7.3.2

9.2.8 Prefixes hyphenated or combined with surnames

9.2.8.1

9.2.8.2

9.2.8.3

This rule needs to be qualified by "if considered important" or something like that. As it stands we are instructed to make references in all cases from the form following the prefix--i.e., from "Gerald, Colin Fitz-", "Donald, William Mac-", and "Bure, Guillaume De-" which hardly seems reasonable. Bob Maxwell, Jan. 1, 2008.

9.2.9 Surnames of members of royal houses

9.2.9.1

This is the exception to the rule. Shouldn't it be stated last, not first? Bob Maxwell, Jan. 1, 2008.

9.2.9.2

9.2.9.3

9.2.9.4

9.2.10 General guidelines on recording names containing a title of nobility

9.2.10.1 General guidelines

9.2.10.1.1

9.2.10.1.2

9.2.10.1.3

9.2.10.1.4

9.2.10.1.5

9.2.11 Titles in the United Kingdom peerage that include a territorial designation

9.2.11.1

9.2.11.2

9.2.11.3

9.2.12 Judges of the Scottish Court of Session bearing a law title beginning with Lord

9.2.12.1

9.2.13 Disclaimed and newly acquired titles

9.2.13.1

9.2.14 General guidelines on recording names containing neither a surname nor a title of nobility

9.2.14.1 General guidelines

9.2.14.1.1

9.2.14.1.2

9.2.14.1.3

9.2.14.1.4

9.2.14.1.5

9.2.14.1.6

9.2.15 Names including a patronymic

I realize this is basically the AACR2 rule, but it is too broad. According to OED, a patronymic is "a name derived from that of a father or male ancestor, esp. by addition of an affix indicating such descent" "MacDonald," "Peterson", and "Swensen" are all patronymics, whether the bearer's father's name is Donald, Peter, or Swen, or not (to be a patronymic it just has to derive from a male ancestor). I have Swedish ancestors who used such names *as patronymics* as recently as the late 19th century. My ancestor Jons Olsson (1822-1863) was so named because his father's name was Ola. After that his descendants used the name "Olsen" or "Olsson," so the strict patronymic usage ended. But under 9.2.15 I suppose I should establish him as "Jons Olsson" and not "Olsson, Jons." This seems quite odd and probably not what was intended. But I am certain the rule didn't intend Jesse Jackson to be established in direct order, even though his name consists of "one or more given names and a patronymic". A clearer definition of what is meant by patronymic and what names this rule is intended to apply to is perhaps needed. Bob Maxwell, Jan. 1, 2008.

9.2.15.1

9.2.15.2

9.2.15.3

9.2.15.4

9.2.16 Names of royal persons

9.2.16.1

9.2.16.2

9.2.17 General guidelines of recording names consisting of initials, or separate letteres or numerals

9.2.17.1 General guidelines

9.2.17.1.1

9.2.17.1.2

9.2.18 General guidelines on recording names consisting of a phrase

9.2.18.1 General guidelines

9.2.18.1.1

9.2.18.1.2

9.2.18.1.3

9.2.18.1.4

9.2.18.1.5

9.2.19 Phrase consisting of a forename or forenames preceded by a term of address, etc.